It could be argued that to leave is to betray the memory of the 184 British soldiers who have died (not forgetting the many from other NATO states). How many more have to die before we all decide that enough is enough?

You and your fellow Parliamentarians need to find a way that allows us to declare victory and get out.

Blair’s reasons and methods for invading and occupying Iraq & Afghanistan were, according to reports, tenuous and not, according to reports at the time,approved by NATO. Dr Kelly was the first ‘victim’ of Blair’s war on Iraq – the respected scientists findings, no WMD’s – reportedly hounded to death. Thereafter, innocent British citizens were killed in 7/7 London bombings.

Whilst our men were dying for ‘the cause’ in Iraq, a hate preacher was (reportedly) receiving £25,000 in benefits, courtesy of ‘government rules’.

Architects and Engineers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO2yT0uBQbM

Nanothermite at WTC 1,2 and 7 ( WTC 7 is the one you never heard of, the one that collapsed, just like WTC1 and 2, at freefall speed, neatly into its own footprint, the one, just like the others too that had tons of Molten steel under neath it )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_2et5WMvVQ

The reference to the Malayan campaign has a personal resonance as my Uncle won the DFC for his flying exploits there. As I understand it, that was a campaign that was going nowhere until the tactics were changed to something that worked in the particular circumstances. In Afghanistan we are told about “grass cutting” where by Allied forces push the Taliban out of an area, then leave it, allowing the Taliban to re-enter, only to have to repeat the process. This seems to me plain daft and its main consequence to upset the locals no end. This is the exact opposite to the successful tactic deployed in Malaya.

Historical references to the the Afghans resistance to invasion applied to the current Allied deployment are not convincing if you accept the Allies are not trying to take over Afghanistan but to provide sufficient security for the Afghans to determine their own future. News reports of British troop engagements indicate the current enemy are mostly foreigners, not Afghans. One would hope that if the Allies do enable the Afghans to determine their own future they will see us in a friendly light during and after our subsequent withdrawal.

Of course, getting the strategy right and deploying the right tactics (eventually) is all pointless unless you are prepared to properly resource the endeavour.

I do think there are questions to be asked about the objectives and, more particularly, the means for the deployment, but it is a long way from such questions to say we should not be there at all. It seems to me there was a good reason to go there in the first place, and it is a shame that instead of capitalising on initial success we shifted attention to Iraq, resulting in a poor job being done in both places.

Unfavourable conclusions based on comparison with historic British involvement with Afghanistan is misplaced because the circumstances and the objectives are different.

To leave Afghanistan too soon will store up more problems for the future. Given the problem areas along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border it is pretty stupid to reduce capability on the Afghanistan side at a time when the Pakistan is trying to do something better on their side. And what will all the mall-contents around the World think of a major power and permanent member of the UN Security Council if they can not hack it in this petty squabble?

I realise the UK is not the major player – but that is a whole different argument.